Special issue paper A low-dose mindfulness intervention and recovery...

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2015), 88, 464–489

© 2015 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Special issue paper

A low-dose mindfulness intervention and recoveryfrom work: Effects on psychological detachment,sleep quality, and sleep duration

Ute R. H€ulsheger1*, Alina Feinholdt2 and Annika N€ubold11Maastricht University, The Netherlands2University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Although playing a crucial role for the prevention of long-term health impairment,interventions aiming at the improvement of employees’ recovery processes are stillscarce. In this study, we therefore investigated the effectiveness of a low-dosemindfulnessintervention for recovery fromwork. In addition, differential responding to the treatmentin terms of treatment-by-baseline interactions was studied. A sample of 140 employeesparticipated in a randomized field experiment with a self-training and a wait-list controlgroup. Three central recovery processes (psychological detachment, sleep quality, andsleep duration) were assessed with event-sampling methodology involving dailymeasurements over 10 workdays. Growth curve analyses revealed intervention effectson sleep quality and sleep duration. No effects were found for psychological detachmentafter work and for the proposed treatment-by-baseline interactions. Our findings arediscussed in the context of occupational health promotion in general and mindfulness-based interventions in specific.

Practitioner points

! Although daily recovery from the demands of work has been shown to be vital for employeewell-beingand performance, research on how workplace interventions can help improve recovery is still scarce.

! This study investigated the effectiveness of a brief, economic mindfulness intervention on processesthat are vital for recovery – psychological detachment, sleep quality, and sleep duration.

! Findings revealed positive effects of the intervention on sleep quality and duration, but not onpsychological detachment.

Resource-oriented interventions at work try to enhance well-being and performance inthe workplace by targeting a variety of employees’ personal, social, and job-relatedresources (e.g., Bond, Flaxman, &Bunce, 2008; Luthans, Avey, &Patera, 2008;Ouweneel,Le Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2013). Although these positive psychological interventions havegreat potential for occupational health promotion, more is to be learned about theresources that qualify for optimal improvement, the dynamics of participants’ progressduring these interventions as well as the specific boundary conditions that restrict orboost programme effectiveness (Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013). Thus, questions on what

*Correspondence should be addressed to Ute R. H€ulsheger, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands (email: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1111/joop.12115

464

to train, how (long) to train, and whom to train in order to get the most out of often costlyand time-consuming interventions, need to be addressed.

With this study, we aim to contribute to this line of research by testing the effects of alow-dose self-training mindfulness intervention on recovery processes. Mindfulnessdescribes a state of consciousness characterized by a non-judgmental and attentive state ofawareness of momentary events and experiences (Bishop et al., 2004; Brown, Ryan, &Creswell, 2007). Initial evidence on the benefits of mindfulness in the context of workstems from studies that have investigated the role of natural variations in mindfulness(mostly trait mindfulness) and their relations to work-related outcomes, such as work–lifebalance, job satisfaction, well-being, performance, and recovery (Allen & Kiburz, 2012;Dane & Brummel, 2014; H€ulsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013; H€ulsheger et al.,2014; Reb, Narayanan, & Ho, 2015). In addition to these cross-sectional and diary studieson mindfulness in the work context, there is a different line of research investigating theeffectiveness of mindfulness interventions for working adults. The majority of thesestudies tested the effectiveness of comprehensivemindfulness interventions, typically theMindfulness-Based Stress Reduction programme (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1982, 1990), andtypically for health care professionals (e.g., Cohen-Katz et al., 2005). Recently,researchers have started to adapt the MBSR to the demands of the working population(e.g., Michel, Bosch, & Rexroth, 2014; Wolever et al., 2012). With this study, we aim tobuild upon and extend this line of work.

First, we study the effectiveness of an economic, low-dose mindfulness interventiondeveloped by H€ulsheger et al. (2013) that incorporates core elements of MBSR and iscustomized to the needs of working adults. In contrast to the mindfulness interventionsdiscussed above, the intervention is self-administered; it only spans a period of 2 weeks(in contrast to typically 8 weeks in MBSR) and involves relatively brief daily mindfulnesspractices. Research in the field of positive psychology has shown that already small-scaleinterventions, such as reflecting on blessings (Emmons & McCullough, 2003) orperforming kind acts (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005) each day, may help toenhance individuals’ personal resources and their well-being.

Second, in studying the effectiveness of this low-dose mindfulness intervention, wefocus on employees’ daily recovery processes as outcome variables. Specifically, we testthe effects of the interventionon individuals’ psychological detachment fromworkduringnon-work time as well as subsequent sleep quality and quantity. Although research in thefield of occupational health psychology has emphasized the importance of successfuldaily recovery from the demands of work (Fritz, Yankelevich, Zarubin, & Barger, 2010;Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2008; Sonnentag, Mojza, Demerouti, & Bakker, 2012;Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006), research on how employees’ recovery processes can befacilitated through training is still scarce (for an exception see Hahn, Binnewies,Sonnentag, & Mojza, 2011). As previous research has indicated that state mindfulness ispositively related to successful recovery (H€ulsheger et al., 2014), a mindfulnessintervention may prove especially useful to foster recovery.

Third, scholars have called for research that not only focuses on whethermindfulness interventions are effective, but also specifies for whom they are mosteffective (e.g., Roth & Fonagy, 2005; Shapiro, Brown, Thoresen, & Plante, 2011).Knowledge on these contingencies may be an important means for organizations tostreamline health programmes, tailor them to specific groups, and spare resources. Wetherefore investigate treatment-by-baseline interactions – systematic differences in thebenefit obtained by individuals with different baseline levels as a result of anintervention (Khoo, 2001).

Low-dose mindfulness intervention and recovery 465

Fourth, with this study we combine a randomized field trial with event-samplingmethodology (H€ulsheger et al., 2013). This set-up bears a number of advantages overtypical set-ups involving only pre- and post-intervention measurements in that it providesvaluable insights on how outcome variables change over time during the interventionand allows comparing these change trajectories between the intervention and controlgroup.

Mindfulness and mindfulness interventionsMindfulness is the English translation of the Pali word ‘sati’ which connotes ‘lucidawareness’. According to Kabat-Zinn (2003), mindfulness is defined as an ‘awareness thatemerges through paying attention on purpose in the present moment, non-judgmentallyto the unfolding of experiencemoment bymoment’ (p. 145). Cultivating present-momentattention and awareness allows the practitioner to attain the role of an external agentwhoobserves the constant flow of thoughts, sensations, and emotions and how these aretransformed into entities of personal meaning (Williams, 2010). Both awareness andattention allow the practitioner to understand that neither thoughts nor emotions areeternal but subject to change (Dreyfus, 2011). This way of looking at things allows thepractitioner to separate what is really experienced in any moment and what is simply theresult of internally generated interpretations (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Consequentially,mindfulness enables to slow down automatic tendencies and, meanwhile, mitigateemotional reactivity (Dreyfus, 2011).

Since the introduction of the MBSR programme (Kabat-Zinn, 1982, 1990), manydifferent types of mindfulness-based interventions have emerged. While they differ inaspects such as the incorporated meditation practices, treatment duration, or targetgroup, each of them aims at cultivating an open-hearted attention towards externally andinternally generated experiences and the way people relate to them (Kabat-Zinn, 2003;Baer, 2003). Both, the variety of interventions and the continuously growing popularity ofmindfulness is largely due to its effectiveness as a treatment for numerous somatic andpsychological disorders, including anxiety and depression, insomnia, or pain (e.g.,Hofmann, Sawyer, Witt, & Oh, 2010; Ong, Shapiro, & Manber, 2008; Rosenzweig et al.,2010).

Recently, scholars in the field of work and organizational psychology becameincreasingly interested in the value of mindfulness in the context of work. Initialevidence on the benefits of mindfulness interventions for employees stems fromstudies investigating traditional mindfulness interventions with samples from thehealth care professions and focusing on psychological distress and burnout asoutcome variables (e.g., Cohen-Katz et al., 2005; Galantino, Baime, Maguire, Szapary,& Farrar, 2005; Irving, Dobkin, & Park, 2009; Krasner et al., 2009). Importantly,traditional mindfulness-based interventions are comprehensive in terms of timeinvestment. For instance, the typical duration of the MBSR programme spans over8 weeks during which participants attend weekly group meetings for 2 hours ormore. Next to this, participants are supposed to devote 45 min to daily meditationpractice. However, time commitment is one of the biggest challenges to the feasibilityof mindfulness in everyday life (Sears, Kraus, Carlough, & Treat, 2011), especially forindividuals with busy work schedules and high workload.

Therefore, recent attempts have been made to adapt mindfulness interventions tobetter fit the requirements of the working population (Klatt, Buckworth, &Malarkey, 2009; Malarkey, Jarjoura, & Klatt, 2013; Van Berkel, Boot, Proper, Bongers, &

466 Ute R. H€ulsheger et al.

van der Beek, 2013; Wolever et al., 2012). In an endeavour to reduce the timecommitment for participants and help themfitmindfulness practices into their busyworklives, weekly group meetings have been shortened, for instance, to 1 hr and dailymindfulness practices have been reduced to 5–15 min (Wolever et al., 2012). Further-more, daily mindfulness practices that were initially designed for clinical applications andtargeted pain and other psychological symptoms were adapted to better fit work-relatedissues, such as work stress, work–life balance, and self-care (e.g., Michel et al., 2014;Wolever et al., 2012). The condensed intervention used in this study spans twoworkweeks and involves brief mindfulness practices (about 10 min) that can readily beintegrated into participants’ (work) life (H€ulsheger et al., 2013). A unique feature is that itis a pure self-training intervention and does not involve formal groupmeetings, retreats orcontacts with a mindfulness trainer or coach (common elements in traditionalmindfulness-based interventions). It is therefore time- and cost-effective both foremployees and for organizations. While positive effects of this intervention have alreadybeen documented for job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion in a sample of serviceworkers (H€ulsheger et al., 2013), it remains to be tested whether it also benefits dailyrecovery processes in terms of psychological detachment, sleep quality, and sleepduration.

Recovery from workThe concept of recovery is crucial in understanding under what conditions the exposureto work demands and work stressors leads to long-term health impairments (Geurts &Sonnentag, 2006). According to the effort–recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998),effort expenditure at work is associated with acute load reactions, as evidenced, forinstance, by an elevated heart rate and the experience of fatigue. These acute loadreactions become gradually chronic and impair employee health and well-being in thelong run when employees are continuously exposed to workload and when recovery isincomplete (Geurts& Sonnentag, 2006). Psychological andphysiological unwinding fromthe demands ofwork duringnon-work time are thus vitally important, not only tomaintainemployee well-being and health (e.g., Fritz et al., 2010; Sonnentag, 2001; Sonnentag &Zijlstra, 2006) but also to facilitatework engagement (Sonnentag et al., 2012), proactivity,and work performance (Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, 2009; Fritz et al., 2010). Whileresearch on factors that help or hinder recovery from work has grown exponentially inrecent years, comparatively little attention has been devoted to develop interventions thatfoster recovery processes (for an exception see Hahn et al., 2011). This is surprising asthese interventionswould be of great importance for organizations that seek tomaintain ahealthy, engaged, and productive workforce.

In examining the effects of the self-training intervention on recovery, we focus onthree key aspects, namely psychological detachment from work, sleep quality, and sleepduration (Fritz et al., 2010; Pereira, Meier, & Elfering, 2013; Querstret & Cropley, 2012;Sonnentag et al., 2012). Psychological detachment has been defined as an ‘individual’ssense of being away from the work situation’ (Etzion, Eden, & Lapidot, 1998, p. 579). Itdoes not only involve a physical distance from work and the work situation, but also anabstinence of any work-related feelings or thoughts (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).Accordingly, psychological detachment has been described to be a core recoveryexperience (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). It has been shown to be related to a range of otherimportant health-, well-being-, and performance-related outcomes, including emotional


exhaustion, work–family conflict, and work engagement (Demsky, Ellis, & Fritz, 2014;Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009; Fritz et al., 2010; Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010).1

Also sleep plays a key role in recovery processes (Querstret & Cropley, 2012;Sonnentag et al., 2008). It is the antipode to working, represents total disengagementfromwork-related activities and (conscious) thoughts, and is thereby not only relevant forpsychological unwinding, but also for physical and physiological recovery.

Although recovery research has typically focused on sleep quality (Querstret &Cropley, 2012; Sonnentag et al., 2008), sleep duration is also an important aspect toconsider. While sleep quality is a subjective evaluation of how well an individual slept(Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer, 1989), sleep duration captures the totalamount of hours a person has slept (which may differ from the time that person has beenlying in bed). Although related, sleep quality and sleep duration are theoretically andempirically distinct from one another (Barclay, Eley, Buysse, Tijsdijk, & Gregory, 2010;Buysse et al., 1989). In recent years, researchers in the field of work and organizationalpsychology have startedpaying increasing attention to sleepduration as it has been shownto not only be affected by work (Barnes, Wagner, & Ghumman, 2012) but also to relate towork-relevant outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour(Barnes, Ghumman, & Scott, 2013; Barnes et al., 2012).

Notably, a recent study investigating the effects of amindfulness-based intervention onwork–family balance documented increases in psychological detachment after a 3-weekmindfulness intervention (Michel et al., 2014). This study aims to replicate these findingsregarding psychological detachment using a different and shorter self-training interven-tion. Furthermore, our study extends their work by studying sleep quality and duration asoutcome variables and by tracking daily intervention-related changes over time bycombining an experimental set-up with a diary design.

Effects of mindfulness practices on psychological detachment, sleep quality, and sleepquantityTheoretical and empiricalwork onmindfulness suggests thatmindfulness-based practicesimprove self-regulation of psychological, behavioural, andphysiological reactions (Brownet al., 2007; Glomb, Duffy, Bono, & Yang, 2011; Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman,2006). It is through these self-regulatory processes that a mindfulness intervention mayfacilitate successful unwinding from the demands of work and promote recovery in termsof psychological detachment, sleep quality, and sleep duration. Glomb et al. (2011)summarized primary and secondary mechanisms explaining how mindfulness-basedpractices facilitate self-regulation. In the context of recovery, two central primarymechanisms that facilitate self-regulation are the decoupling of the self from experiencesand interoceptive awareness.

1Rather than including all four recovery experiences defined by Sonnentag and Fritz (2007; psychological detachment, relaxation,mastery experiences, and control), we chose to focus on psychological detachment exclusively: Psychological detachment has beenshown to be the recovery experience with the strongest relationship with other important psychological health outcomes, such asemotional exhaustion, health complaints, or depressive symptoms (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), and it has therefore been playing acentral role in the recovery literature (Pereira & Elfering, 2014; Sonnentag, Arbeus, Mahn, & Fritz, 2014). Furthermore,theoretical work on mindfulness suggests that mindfulness should have strongest effects on psychological detachment, whilerelations with the other three recovery experiences are less obvious. Accordingly, previous research has revealed significantrelationships between self-reported mindfulness and psychological detachment (H€ulsheger et al., 2014), while relationships withrelaxation, mastery experience, and control have been shown to be non-existent or small (Marzuq & Drach-Zahavy, 2012).


Decoupling of the self from experiences (also referred to as reperceiving orcognitive decentering) has been described as the cornerstone of mindfulness practice(Shapiro et al., 2006). It describes a shift in perspective on what individualsexperience: ‘Rather than being immersed in the drama of our personal narrative or lifestory, we are able to stand back and simply witness it’ (Shapiro et al., 2006, p. 377).Mindfulness practices promote reperceiving as participants learn to focus on present-moment experiences and to simply notice external as well as internal events(thoughts, sensations, and emotions) in a non-judgmental way. The goal ofmindfulness practices is to strengthen the ability to observe what we are experiencingrather than being completely embedded in it (Shapiro et al., 2006). This, in turn,creates meta-awareness, the ability to be aware of the things dominating the mind atany present moment (Shapiro et al., 2006). Together these qualities facilitate a moreobjective assessment of external and internal events whereby radical emotional orbehavioural reactions to these events can be mitigated. In fact, mindfulness has beenshown to enhance adaptive forms of emotion regulation (Arch & Craske, 2006;Erisman & Roemer, 2010; Glomb et al., 2011; H€ulsheger et al., 2013) and decreaserumination (Glomb et al., 2011; Jain et al., 2007; Shapiro, Brown, & Biegel, 2007). Asemployees frequently experience negative events or stress at work, the ability to standback and simply notice what is with a non-evaluative attitude will help them to keeptheir emotions on an even keel. It makes them less likely to get caught up inperseverative cognitions regarding the causes and potential implications of thesenegative events. This will preserve mental resources during work and help them to beless inclined to ruminate, thus helping them to psychologically detach from workduring non-work time. Links with sleep quality and duration are twofold: First,reduced rumination will facilitate falling asleep and promote sleep quality (Querstret& Cropley, 2012). Second, difficulties with falling asleep are often preceded by rigidand controlling attempts to enforce sleep. However, as sleep is not under fullvoluntary control, trying to enforce sleep has paradoxical effects as it increases pre-sleep cognitive activity, arousal, and anxiety which are incompatible with sleep(Broomfield & Espie, 2003; Ong, Card"e, Gross, & Manber, 2011). Reperceiving, theability to step back and observe, promotes a non-striving attitude and acceptance thatone may not fall asleep immediately. It helps to let go of the idea that one has to fallasleep, and it reduces cognitive activity, arousal, and anxiety which helps that sleepcomes naturally (Ong et al., 2008).

Apart from decoupling the self from experiences, another mechanism through whichmindfulness may benefit recovery processes is through strengthening an individual’sinteroceptive awareness. Interoceptive awareness refers to individuals’ sensitivity tostimuli that originate inside the body (visceral sensations associatedwith, e.g., respiration,digestion, circulation, or proprioception) and that are involved in maintaining homoeo-stasis (Craig, 2003). As mindfulness meditation practice involves sustained attention tobodily sensations, such as respiratory sensations and feelings of tension, pain, orphysiological arousal, mindfulness has been argued to promote interoceptive awareness(Glomb et al., 2011; H€olzel et al., 2008; Kerr, Sacchet, Lazar, Moore, & Jones, 2013;Kristeller,Wolever, & Sheets, 2013). Indeed, neuropsychological research confirmed thatmindfulness practice was associated with increased grey matter concentration in brainareas associated with interoceptive awareness (H€olzel et al., 2008). Interoceptiveawareness, in turn, may influence self-regulation of behaviour as visceral sensoryimpulses that reach awareness are likely to affect behaviour, thought, and emotion(Cameron, 2001). This argument is supported by research showing that interoception is


associated with adaptive self-regulation in general and emotion regulation in particular(F€ust€os, Gramann, Herbert, & Pollatos, 2013; Van ‘t Wout, Faught, & Menino, 2013). Forinstance, interoceptive awareness has been shown to be negatively related to obsessivecompulsive drinking behaviour (Schmidt, Eulenbruch, Langer, & Banger, 2013)and positively with the ability to respond adaptively to unfair treatment by others(Van ‘t Wout et al., 2013).

A heightened awareness of bodily sensations may thus foster recovery. Employeeswho are aware of early symptoms of stress, exhaustion, or fatigue are more likely to adapttheir behaviour and engage in activities that facilitate rather than impede recoverycompared with employees who are unaware of their bodily sensations. They may, forinstance, avoid stressful work situations and overtime hours, deliberately take a breakfrom work, and engage in leisure activities that have been shown to promote recovery(e.g., physical and social activities; Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006). In doing so, psychologicaldetachment and, in turn, sleep qualitymay be facilitated. Similarly, becoming aware of thephysiological signals of tiredness, employeesmay go to bed earlier, leading to longer sleepduration.

Taken together, we therefore expect that psychological detachment, sleep quality,and sleep duration increase as a result of the self-administered low-dose mindfulnessintervention.

Hypothesis 1: There will be an interaction between time and condition in predicting (a)psychological detachment, (b) sleep quality, and (c) sleep duration.Specifically, (a) psychological detachment, (b) sleep quality, and (c) sleepduration will increase over time in the intervention group, whileremaining stable in the control group.

Treatment-by-baseline effectsMindfulness researchers have argued that studies into the effectiveness of mindfulnessinterventions not only need to investigate whether mindfulness interventions areeffective, but also for whom they are most effective (Shapiro et al., 2011). Learningmore about differential effects of workplace health promotion programmes in generalis vital in order to tailor interventions to employees’ needs and invest time and moneyeffectively. In investigating differential effects, we will focus on treatment-by-baselineinteractions.

Intervention research has frequently documented situations inwhich individuals withhigh versus low baseline levels show differential reactions to interventions (Khoo, 2001;MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007). Typically, clinical interventions as well asinterventions in the field of work and organizational psychology (e.g., Eden & Aviram,1993; Eden &Kinnar, 1991) have had stronger effects for individuals who are more at riskand display low levels of initial functioning. The underlying idea is that those with lowbaseline levels may have more to gain from an intervention, while ceiling effects mayhamper the benefits for those with high baseline levels (Shapiro et al., 2011). Formindfulness-based interventions, findings have beenmixed: Jacobs et al. (2011) did find atreatment-by-baseline interaction when investigating the effectiveness of meditationtraining among healthy participants – those who displayed poorer psychologicalfunctioning at baseline benefitted more from the intervention than their higherfunctioning counterparts. In contrast, Wolitzky-Taylor, Arch, Rosenfield, and Craske(2012) found no interaction effect. Notably however, they examined the effectiveness of


acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), which includes not only elements ofmindfulness, but also of cognitive behavioural therapy. Thus, the dependence of theeffectiveness of mindfulness interventions on participants’ baseline levels may differaccording to the components of the intervention and the outcome variables that are takeninto account. In sum, theoretical arguments and the empirical literature suggest thatbenefits from mindfulness interventions may differ depending on participants’ baselinelevels on outcome variables.

Hypothesis 2: There will be an interaction between condition (intervention vs. controlgroup) and baseline levels for (a) psychological detachment, (b) sleepquality, and (c) sleep duration such that gains in recovery processes dueto the intervention are stronger for participants with low baseline levels.

The present studyTo investigate the ideas developed above, we used a randomized field experiment incombination with experience sampling methodology (ESM), a set-up previouslyemployed by H€ulsheger et al. (2013). Specifically, participants were randomlyassigned to the intervention group or a wait-list control group. Both groupsparticipated in a diary study spanning 10 workdays and involving three dailymeasurement occasions (in the morning, at the end of work, and at bedtime). Thisset-up bears a number of advantages and allows for a comprehensive evaluation ofthe self-training intervention, both in terms of outcomes and processes involved.Typically, studies investigating positive psychology interventions in the context ofwork use randomized pre-test post-test control group designs, involving pre- andpost-intervention measurements, and sometimes a follow-up measurement (for anoverview see Meyers, van Woerkom, & Bakker, 2013). Although such a set-up isvaluable as it allows making causal inferences and excluding a number of threats toexternal and internal validity (Cook & Campbell, 1979), extending this set-up byincluding daily measurement occasions over two workweeks bears importantadvantages: First, in the context of recovery, where outcome variables have beenshown to be dynamic and to fluctuate from day to day within persons (Sonnentaget al., 2008), it is important to assess them as they occur rather than relying on one-point-in-time retrospective assessments which do not capture day-to-day fluctuationsand are prone to recall biases (Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010).

Second, change patterns in outcome variables can be monitored over the entirestudy period, providing insights into the processes involved in the intervention: Forinstance, change may occur linearly, such that the control group remains stable whilethe intervention group shows a linear increase in outcome variables. Yet, it is alsopossible that largest gains may be reaped in the beginning of the intervention andremain stable once a certain level is reached. Alternatively, a certain period of trainingmay be necessary before the intervention has an effect on outcome variables such thatintervention and control group remain similar in the beginning and then start to growapart. These differences in the processes involved in an intervention are onlydetectable if outcome variables are repeatedly measured in small time intervals duringthe intervention. In this study, we therefore use event-sampling methodology,involving daily measurements of mindfulness, psychological detachment, sleep quality,and sleep duration, and analyse change trajectories in outcome variables over 10workdays.


Method

ProcedureParticipants were randomly assigned to the self-training intervention or the wait-listcontrol group. Both groups received a paper-and-pencil diary booklet consisting of theintroductory survey and diary surveys for 10 workdays. Participants were asked to fill inthe introductory survey before starting with the diary part.

For participants in the intervention group, the self-training interventionwas integratedinto the diary while participants in the control group received a booklet with the self-training intervention after completion of the study.

The self-training interventionWe used the self-training intervention developed by H€ulsheger et al. (2013) that buildsupon key elements and exercises of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; Segal,Williams, & Teasdale, 2002) and MBSR (Kabat-Zinn, 1982, 1990). First, participantsreceived some general information about mindfulness and mindfulness meditation alongwith instructionswhen and how to perform the exercises. Similar toMBCT andMBSR, theself-training intervention consisted of daily guided mindfulness meditations and informalmindfulness exercises. Specifically, participants were sequentially familiarized with thefollowing mindfulness practices: The Body Scan, the Three-minute Breathing Space, theMindful Routine Activity exercise, and a Loving KindnessMeditation exercise. All of theseexercises aim at cultivating an open-hearted attention towards externally and internallygenerated stimuli. As an essential part of mindfulness trainings, participants wereencouraged to develop an open and compassionate mindset in performing all of theseexercises. Table 1provides brief descriptions of the exercises and anoverviewwheneachexercise was introduced and how often participants were asked to perform them. Foreach exercise, participants first received some brief written information as well as audiofiles with guided meditations. When performing mindfulness meditation exercises,participants typically realize how difficult it is to stay focused on the present moment andhow easily one gets distracted by thoughts. This may cause frustration and make it evenmore difficult to stay focused on the present moment. Participants were thereforerepeatedly encouraged to not criticize or blame themselves but to simply realize whenthey get distracted and to be kind and indulgent to themselves and their weaknesses.

ParticipantsThe sample was a convenience sample recruited from a broad range of organizations inGermany. The majority of participants was approached directly and mostly in person.Some participants were contacted via mail first. Others received a flyer with an invitationto the study from colleagues or supervisors. Overall, 220 diary booklets were distributed,148 of which were returned (75 intervention group, 73 control group), resulting in anoverall response rate of 67.3%. Notably, the actual response rate is likely to be lowerbecause some supervisors forwarded information on the study and flyers to an unknownnumber of individuals and some individuals who were approached individually may nothave accepted a diary booklet in the first place.

As a compliance check, participants in the intervention groupwere asked every day toindicatewhether they had engaged in their dailymindfulnessmeditation exercises. A totalof eight participants either indicated on all 10 days to not have engaged in themindfulness


Table 1. Schedule and description of mindfulness exercises involved in the self-training intervention

Day

Three-minutebreathingspace

Bodyscan

Mindfulroutineactivity

Loving kindness

Me FriendNeutralperson

Dislikedperson

1 MorningEvening x x

2 Morning x xEvening x

3 Morning x xEvening x x








Three-minuteBreathingSpace

Participants learn to strengthen the focus on the present moment. Central to thisexercise is the breath which functions as an anchor. Whenever distracting thoughtsappear, attention is gently brought back to the act of breathing. This exercise isrelatively short, and it can easily be implemented into individuals’ (work–) life. It helpsto disrupt automatic behaviour and thinking patterns and to reconnect with thepresent moment (Siegel, 2010; Williams, Teasdale, Segal, & Kabat-Zinn, 2007)

Body Scan Participants are instructed to bring attention and awareness to different body parts bysequentially ‘scanning’ through them, starting with the feet and moving up from there.Doing so, participants pay attention to the physical sensations (pleasant andunpleasant) that they recognize while focusing on the respective body part

The MindfulRoutineActivity

Participants pick a routine activity (e.g., preparing breakfast, taking a shower) and try toperform it in a mindful rather than automatic way by bringing full attention to it.Whenever distracting thoughts cross themind, attention is gently brought back to theactivity

LovingKindness

Goal of the Loving Kindness exercise is to cultivate love and kindness for others andoneself (Shapiro & Carlson, 2009). The exercise begins with focusing on the breath,thereby bringing attention to the present moment. In the central part of the exercise,participants send loving and compassionate feelings and wishes to themselves orothers and try to vividly picture these tender feelings. First, the Loving KindnessMeditation focuses on the self, and it is then extended to others – First to individualswith which one has a positive relationship, then to a neutral person, and finally to aperson with which one has a difficult relationship

Note. TheMindful RoutineActivity exercisewas introduced on the second evening, and participantswereasked to perform it every day at a point in time that suited them best.


meditation exercises or failed to answer the respective question on all 10 days of thestudy. These eight participants were dropped from analyses. The final sample thereforeconsisted of 140 participants (67, intervention group; 73, control group), 97 were female(69.3%), one participant failed to indicate his/her gender. Participants held a variety ofdifferent jobs. A total of 15.7% were clerks (bank, accounting, insurance, payroll), 10.7%hairdressers, 8.6% merchants, 7.9% consultants, 6.4% kindergarten teachers andpedagogues, 5% health care professionals (e.g., hearing aid acousticians, optometrists),4.3% civil servants and police officers, 3.6% nurses, 2.9% were managers, HR profession-als, physicians, and engineers respectively, 2.1% were secretaries or retail salespersonsrespectively, 1.4%were physiotherapists, athletic trainers orwaiters respectively, the restheld other types of jobs or did not indicate their occupation. On average, they were37 years of age (SD = 13.3) and had an organizational tenure of 11.2 years (SD = 11.5).Participants in the intervention and control group did not differ significantly regardinggender, tenure, and baseline levels of sleep quality and psychological detachment.Participants in the control group were significantly older (M = 39.96, p = .01; Cohen’sd = ".45) compared to participants in the intervention group (M = 34.27). Furthermore,although not reaching statistical significance, baseline levels of mindfulness (controlgroup M = 3.66, intervention group M = 3.47, p = .12; Cohen’s d = ".28) and sleepduration (control group M = 6.59, intervention group M = 6.23, p = .09; Cohen’sd = ".31) tended to differ somehow. On average, participants in the intervention groupspent 10.5 min (SD = 7.0) on their daily mindfulness practices.

MeasuresData collection consisted of two parts: A general survey and the diary part including briefdaily surveys that had to be answered three times a day (in themorning, at the endofwork,before going to bed), for 10 workdays. All items were in German and had to be answeredon 5-point Likert scales. The general questionnaire was completed before participantsstarted filling in the diary part and before the intervention group received themindfulnessself-training intervention. In the general survey, demographic information and baselinemeasures were assessed:

Trait mindfulnessWe assessed trait mindfulness with the German version (Michalak, Heidenreich, Str€ohle,& Nachtigall, 2008) of the 15-item Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS;Brown & Ryan, 2003). A (reversed) sample item is ‘I find it difficult to stay focused onwhat’s happening in the present’.

Psychological detachmentGeneral psychological detachment after work was assessed with the respective 4-itemscale of the Recovery ExperienceQuestionnaire (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). A sample itemis ‘I don’t think about work at all’.

Sleep quality and durationParticipants’ general levels of sleep quality and durationwere assessedwith the respectiveitems from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (Buysse et al., 1989): ‘On average, how do


you evaluate your sleep?’; ‘On average, howmanyhours of actual sleepdo youget at night?(This may be different than the number of hours you spend in bed.)’ These items havebeen used in studies on recovery from work stress (Hahn et al., 2011; Sonnentag et al.,2008).

In the diary part, sleep quality and durationwere assessed in themorning survey, hoursworked and mindfulness in the end of work survey, and psychological detachment in thebedtime survey.

Sleep quality and durationSleepquality anddurationwere assessedwith the same items thatwere used in the generalquestionnaire, but participants were instructed to refer to the past night.

MindfulnessMindfulness during work was assessed with the German translation (Michalak et al., 2008)of the 5-item state version of theMAAS (Brown&Ryan, 2003). Participants were instructedto refer to their experiences ‘today during work’ when answering the questions. A sampleitem is ‘I rushed through activities without being really attentive to them’.

Psychological detachmentPsychological detachment was assessed with the same items used in the generalquestionnaire but referring to the respective evening.

Control variables (work hours and age)In line with previous recovery research (Sonnentag et al., 2014), we controlled for workhours which have been shown to be associated with recovery-related outcomes such asfatigue and psychological detachment (Sanz-Vergel, Demerouti, Bakker, & Moreno-Jimenez, 2011; Shirom, Nirel, & Vinokur, 2009). At the end ofwork, participants reportedthe amount of hours they had worked: ‘How many hours did you work today?’.Furthermore, we controlled for age, for which we had found significant baseline groupdifferences (see sample description).

Variance decompositionFor variables that were assessed at the day level, we inspected the relative amount ofwithin- and between-person variation by computing the ICC1 in an unconditional randomcoefficient model (Bliese, 2006). Results revealed ICC1 values between .23 and .54 (workhours: .54; mindfulness: .51; sleep quality: .23; sleep duration: .40; psychologicaldetachment: .43), indicating that 46% of variance inwork hours, 49% inmindfulness, 77%in sleep quality, 60% in sleep duration, and 57% in psychological detachment from workwere lying within persons.

AnalysesOur data had a hierarchical structure with 10 daily reports nested in persons. To test theeffects of the self-training intervention, we therefore used a random coefficient modelling


framework that is suitable when one has multilevel data. This allowed us to conductgrowth curve analyses and to fully exploit the longitudinal data structure by investigatingchange on dependent variables over time (i.e., over the 10-day period) and the extent towhich these change trajectories were a function of condition (control vs. interventiongroup). For every dependent variable, we started out with testing how the dependentvariable changed over time by modelling the fixed relationship between time (i.e., day ofthe study) and the dependent variable (Model 1) (Bliese&Ployhart, 2002). Specifically,wemodelled a linear relationship first and then progressed to model quadratic and cubicrelationships (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002). Once the form of the relationship between timeand the dependent variable was established, we included a random slope parameter. Wethen tested for autoregressive structures (autocorrelation) and for systematic changes inthe variance of responses over time (Bliese, 2006). Once error structures were properlyspecified and included in the model if necessary, we proceeded to test a cross-levelinteraction between time and condition (Model 2). Model 2 represents a conditionalgrowth model and tests whether differences in change trajectories between participants(slope differences) can be explained by group membership (condition). Model 2 directlytests Hypothesis 1. A significant interaction term would indicate that changes in thedependent variable are a function of time and condition (e.g., values increase in onecondition while remaining constant in the other condition). Hypothesis 2 was tested inModel 3 by including a three-way interaction with pre-intervention baseline levels.Hypothesis 2 would be supported if a significant three-way-interaction emerged andshowed, for example, steeper increases in sleep quality in the intervention group forparticipants with low baseline levels compared to participants with high baseline levels.

Results

Intercorrelations between study variables, means, and SD are depicted in Table 2.We started our set of analyses with a manipulation check, by investigating

changes in daily mindfulness. As can be seen from Table 3, Model 1 revealed thatthere was a significant positive linear relationship between time and mindfulness(there was no evidence for a quadratic or cubic relationship). In Model 2, a randomslope parameter for time and a time-by-condition cross-level interaction wereincluded. Results revealed a significant positive interaction between time andcondition, showing that change patterns in mindfulness differed significantlybetween the control and the intervention group. A simple slope analysis wasconducted to probe the interaction effect (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Therewas no significant change in mindfulness for the control group (coef. = ".01,p = .59), while there was a significant increase in mindfulness for the interventiongroup (coef. = .03, p = .009; see Figure 1). Taken together, these results confirmthat the self-training intervention had a positive effect on daily mindfulness levels.Although not part of our hypotheses, we tested whether baseline levels ofmindfulness interacted with time and condition in predicting daily mindfulness. Yet,as can be seen from Model 3, there was no evidence for a treatment-by-baselineinteraction.

For psychological detachment from work, growth curve analyses revealed not only asignificant linear relationship between time and psychological detachment, but alsoevidence for a significant quadratic and cubic relationship (Model 1). In Model 2, wetherefore tested interaction effects between condition and linear, quadratic, and cubic


Table

2.Intercorrelations

betw

eenstud

yvariables

Generalqu

estionn

aire

anddailyvalues

aggregated

tothepersonlevel

Uncentred

dailyvalues

Age

23

45

67

89

106

78

9

Generalquestionn

aire

2Traitmindfulness

.20*

3Sleepquality

".02

.23**

4Sleepduration

".11

.16

.33**

5Psychologicaldetachm

ent

".02

.38**

.12

.04

Dailydiary

questionn

aires

6W

ork

hours

".13

".06

.07

".12

".23**

7Mindfulness

.17*

.39**

.28**

.24**

.19*

".07

".11

8Sleepqu

ality

".03

.15

.36**

.18*

".03

.16

.13

.12*

.08**

9Sleepduration

".21*

.04

.34**

.47**

.10

".24**

.15

.20*

".04

.04*

.47**

10Psychologicaldetachm

ent

.08

.18*

.11

.08

.42**

".24**

.28**

".01

.17*

".11*

.11**

.00

.02

Cronb

ach’sa

–.88

––

.89

–.85

––

.89

M37

.33

3.56

3.09

6.41

2.98

8.21

3.99

3.47

6.55

3.30

SD13

.27

0.67

0.90

1.17

0.98

1.52

0.62

0.61

0.91

0.79

Note.

n=121–14

0atthepersonlevel(generalquestionn

aire

anddailyvalues

aggregated

tothepersonlevel)and83

6–13

14attheday

level(un

centreddailyvalues

fromthedailydiary

questionn

aires).Relationships

betw

eendailyvalues

fromdiary

questionn

aireshave

been

compu

tedwithmultilevelm

odellinginR(nlmepackage),

accoun

ting

fornestinginpersons;C

ronb

ach’salph

aswerecalculated

individually

foreveryday

andthen

averaged

across

the10

daysofthe

stud

y.*p

<.05;**p<.01(two-tailed).


Table 3. Multilevel models predicting daily mindfulness and psychological detachment

Mindfulness Psychological detachment

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Fixed effectsIntercept 4.01** 4.08** 4.07** 3.17** 3.07** 3.07**Age .06 .05 .05 .07 .08 .08Work hours ".04 ".04 ".04 ".07* ".07* ".07*Baseline .21** .24** .33* .32** .33** .46**Condition ".15 ".30** ".28* ".04 .15 .15Time .01* ".01 .00 .17* .23* .23*Time2 ".05* ".05* ".05*Time3 .003* .003 .003Time 9 Condition .03* .03† ".11 ".11Time2 9 Condition .01 .01Time3 9 Condition .00 .00Time 9 Condition 9 Baseline ".01 ".15Time2 9 Condition 9 Baseline .04Time3 9 Condition 9 Baseline .00

Random effectsIntercept .285 .255 .252 .405 .421 .408Time .003 .002 .011 .011Time2 .000 .000Time3 .000 .000Residual .318 .301 .300 .683 .647 .649

Note. N = 1251–1257 observations nested in 135–137 persons. Condition was coded as 0 = controlgroup and 1 = intervention group. Models 2 and 3 formindfulness and psychological detachment allowedfor autocorrelation because they fit the data significantly better thanmodels assuming no autocorrelation.**p < .01; *p < .05; †p = .05 (two-tailed).

Time

Min

dful

ness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 Control group

Intervention group

Figure 1. Changes in daily mindfulness over time (day of the study) as a function of condition.


time trends, respectively. Yet, none of these interactions were significant, indicating thatchangepatterns in psychological detachmentwere similar across conditions (see Figure 2for a graphic illustration). Furthermore, therewas no evidence for a treatment-by-baselineinteraction (Model 3). Taken together, hypotheses 1a and 2a were therefore notsupported.

For sleep quality, a significant positive fixed linear relationship between time and sleepquality emerged (Table 4, Model 1), while there was no evidence for quadratic or cubictime trends. Model 2 revealed a significant, positive cross-level interaction betweencondition and time, indicating that time–sleep quality slopes differed significantlybetween the control and the intervention group. Specifically, there was a decline in sleepquality in the control group (coef. = ".03, p < .05), while the intervention groupexperienced a significant increase in sleep quality over the 10-day period (coef. = .10,p < .01; see Figure 3). Hypothesis 1b was thus supported. As can be seen from Model 3,there was no evidence for a treatment-by-baseline interaction in these change trajectories(Hypothesis 2b).

A similar pattern of results emerged for sleep duration: There was evidence for asignificant positive linear relationship between time and sleep duration, while there wasno evidence for quadratic or cubic trends (Model 1). Time–sleep duration slopes differedbetween conditions (Model 2); this difference reached a significance level of p = .06when applying a conservative two-tailed test of significance. Researchers have argued thatpower to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel designs is typically low,especiallywhen the sample size at Level 1 is relatively small (Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper,&Chen, 2012; Snijders&Bosker, 1999). Researchers have therefore suggested that amorelenient criterion of p < .10 may be applied for detecting cross-level interaction effects(Yeo & Neal, 2004). A simple slope analysis showed that sleep duration did not changeover time in the control group (estimate = .01, n.s.), while it significantly increased in theintervention group (estimate = .05, p < .01; see also Figure 4), supporting Hypothesis

Time

Psyc

holo

gica

l det

achm

ent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0 Control group

Intervention group

Figure 2. Changes in daily psychological detachment over time (day of the study) as a function of

condition.


1c. Hypothesis 2c was not confirmed; the treatment-by-baseline interaction was notsignificant.2

Discussion

Given the importance of recovery for the prevention of long-term health impairments(Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006) on the one hand and the scarcity of recovery managementinterventions (Hahn et al., 2011) on the other hand, the present study set out toinvestigate the effectiveness of a low-dose mindfulness self-training intervention forpsychological detachment, sleep quality, and sleep duration. Study findings were mixed,providing support for some but not all hypotheses: Results revealed that a brief self-training mindfulness intervention was effective in increasing daily levels of mindfulnessduring work, sleep quality, and sleep duration over the course of 10 workdays. However,contrary to expectations, the intervention had no effect on psychological detachment inthe evening. This finding is surprising, considering that earlier research suggests thatmindfulness facilitates psychological detachment. For instance, H€ulsheger et al. (2014)found that daily self-reported mindfulness during work was significantly related topsychological detachment in the evening. Furthermore, previous studies conductedoutside the work context documented that traditional mindfulness-based interventionsled to reduced levels of rumination (Jain et al., 2007; Manicavasagar, Perich, & Parker,2012; Shapiro et al., 2007), a construct that is inversely related to psychologicaldetachment. Similarly, a recent study found a 3-week mindfulness-based intervention to

Table 4. Multilevel models predicting daily sleep quality and sleep duration

Sleep quality Sleep duration

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Fixed effectsIntercept 3.12** 3.36** 3.36** 6.41** 6.49** 6.46**Age .03 .03 .03 ".16* ".16* ".17*Baseline .16** .19** .20** .41** .41** .56**Condition .42* ".10 ".11 .04 ".11 ".10Time .03** ".03 ".03 .03** .01 .01Time 9 Condition .13** .13** .04† .03†

Time 9 Condition 9 Baseline .00 ".01Random effectsIntercept .133 .045 .048 .439 .439 .429Time .002 .002 .000 .000Residual .687 .638 .638 .925 .923 .924

Note. N = 926–1179 observations nested in 122–135 persons. Condition was coded as 0 = controlgroup and 1 = intervention group.**p < .01; *p < .05; †p < .10 (two-tailed).

2 In testing treatment-by-baseline interactions, we used trait measures of the respective outcome measures as a baseline. In thecase of sleep quality and sleep duration, an alternative baseline measure may be sleep quality and sleep duration assessed in themorning of the first day of the study before the intervention started. The pattern of results was similar to results reported above:Nosignificant treatment-by-baseline effect emerged for sleep quality (estimate = .00, n.s.) and for sleep duration (estimate = .00,n.s.).


be effective in increasing psychological detachment in a sample of employees (Michelet al., 2014). Possibly, the present intervention, being of relatively short duration(2 weeks) and involving a comparatively small amount of daily practice time (on average10.5 min as opposed to 45 min in traditional mindfulness interventions), may not havebeen intensive enough to yield effects on psychological detachment. In addition tomindfulness-specific elements, Michel et al.’s (2014) intervention contained a non-mindfulness-related module focusing on the importance of psychological detachment

Time

Slee

p qu

ality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5 Control group

Intervention group

Figure 3. Changes in daily sleep quality over time (day of the study) as a function of condition.

Time

Slee

p du

ratio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5 Control group

Intervention group

Figure 4. Changes in daily sleep duration (in hours) over time (day of the study) as a function of

condition.


and the segmentation of work and private life whichmay have driven or strengthened theeffects of the overall intervention on psychological detachment.

In addition to studying main effects of the intervention, we explored whether theintervention had differential effects for groups of participants. However, the dataprovided no evidence for treatment-by-baseline effects, neither for daily mindfulness norfor the three outcome variables. A potential explanation of the missing treatment-by-baseline interactions may lie in the specifics of the present sample. Typically, treatment-by-baseline interactions that have been documented in intervention and preventionresearch describe a scenario where an intervention has stronger effects on participantswho are vulnerable, at risk, or display low psychological functioning before theintervention (Khoo, 2001; MacKinnon et al., 2007). The present sample was a non-clinical sample of employees. It is therefore likely that their overall level of psychologicalfunctioningmay have been comparatively high and that none or very fewparticipantsmayhave been truly at risk in terms of clinical levels of rumination or insomnia, making itdifficult to find the expected treatment-by-baseline interaction. Supplementary analysesprovide some support for this view.On average, participants’ initial levels of sleep quality,sleep duration, psychological detachment, and neuroticism were of medium size (pre-intervention sleep quality: M = 3.09, SD .90; first-day sleep quality: M = 3.35, SD = .93:pre-intervention sleep duration: M = 6.41, SD 1.17; first-day sleep duration: M = 6.43,SD = 1.21; pre-intervention psychological detachment: M = 2.98, SD = .98; first-daypsychological detachment:M = 3.1, SD = 1.12; pre-intervention neuroticism:M = 2.85,SD = .73), suggesting that participants had regular levels of psychological functioning.

Overall, our findings provide additional evidence thatmindfulness-based interventionsmay be a useful supplement to workplace health promotion programmes (Cohen-Katzet al., 2005; Galantino et al., 2005; Wolever et al., 2012). Specifically, our findings showthat even a low-dose self-training intervention that only spans twoworkweeks in contrastto 8 weeks and that only involves written information and audio files instead of weeklygroup meetings with a mindfulness trainer has the potential to benefit employee healthand well-being by promoting daily recovery processes.

Importantly, our study provided additional insights into the processes involved in thepresent self-training intervention by evaluating it with event-sampling methodology.Typical evaluation studies compare pre-intervention measures to post-intervention andfollow-up measures and inform on the overall effectiveness of the intervention. Incontrast, evaluating the intervention with daily assessments shed light on what happensbetween pre- and post-intervention measurements and how effects of the interventionunfold over time. Growth curve analyses revealed that as of the first days of theintervention, gains in mindfulness, sleep quality, and sleep duration appeared. This is notsurprising when one considers that even brief 10- to 15-min mindful-breathing exerciseshave been shown to have immediate positive effects on emotion regulation and positiveand negative affect in laboratory experiments (Arch & Craske, 2006; Erisman & Roemer,2010; Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, 2014). Furthermore, our analyses showed that thesegains gradually increased in a linear fashion over the 10-day period indicating that thebenefits of mindfulness practice build up as participants practice and gain experiencewith it.

Limitations and future directionsDespite these strengths, the present study had limitations and these suggest severalpossibilities for future research. Although it is an interesting finding in itself that even


after 10 days of mindfulness training, effects emerged, important additional insightscould be gained from extending the training period to four or more weeks: It wouldallow investigating whether effects on psychological detachment develop after alonger period of training. Furthermore, it is likely that training effects on sleep qualityand duration stop increasing in a linear fashion after some time of practice and reacha plateau at a certain point. Future research may also include follow-up measure-ments. These would provide important insights into whether and for how longparticipants continue practicing independently and how long training effects persistafter the formal training phase is over.

Another limitation of the present study is the wait-list control group design which iscommon for initial tests of psychological interventions but has certain limitations as itmaycreate expectation biases or experimenter demand (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, &Finkel, 2008; H€ulsheger et al., 2013). Future research will also benefit from comparingthe self-training mindfulness intervention to other interventions, including traditionalmindfulness interventions, traditional organizational stressmanagement interventions, ora recovery training programme (Hahn et al., 2011).

As reported in the method section, the control and the intervention group tended todiffer regarding baseline levels of mindfulness and sleep duration, although thesedifferences were not statistically significant. Regarding mindfulness, the relativedifference in starting values is apparent from Figure 1, which shows that participantsin the intervention group started with lower levels of mindfulness on day 1 thanparticipants in the control group. Notably, we controlled for baseline levels in outcomevariables to account for these differences. Furthermore, our analyses focus on differencesin changes in outcome variables between intervention and control group over the 10-daystudy period rather than on absolute differences in outcome variables betweenintervention and control group.

Finally, we did not focus on the effect of our intervention on specific processesinvolved in recovery from work, such as psychological detachment from negative workexperiences by promoting a non-evaluative attitude towards those events. A way toextend knowledge on these processes involved in the effectiveness of mindfulnessinterventions is to consider daily negative events at work and test whether individualsreceiving amindfulness intervention react more adaptively to negative work events as wesuggested in the introduction.

In conclusion, this study advanced both the recovery literature and the mindfulnessliterature by providing evidence that a brief self-training intervention is effective inimproving participants’ daily levels of mindfulness during work, their sleep quality, andsleep duration.

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank Annika in der Beek and Sissy B€uscher for their help in collecting data.

References

Allen, T. D., & Kiburz, K. M. (2012). Trait mindfulness and work-family balance among workingparents: Themediating effects of vitality and sleep quality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80,372–379. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.002


Arch, J. J., & Craske, M. G. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: Emotion regulation followinga focused breathing induction. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 1849–1858.doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.12.007

Baer, R. A. (2003).Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 125–143. doi:10.1093/clipsy/bpg015

Barclay, N. L., Eley, T. C., Buysse, D. J., Tijsdijk, F. V., & Gregory, A. M. (2010). Genetic andenvironmental influences on different components of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index andtheir overlap. Sleep, 33, 659–668.

Barnes, C. M., Ghumman, S., & Scott, B. A. (2013). Sleep and organizational citizenship behavior:The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18,16–26. doi:10.1037/a0030349

Barnes, C. M., Wagner, D. T., & Ghumman, S. (2012). Borrowing from sleep to paywork and family:Expanding time-based conflict to the broader nonwork domain. Personnel Psychology, 65,789–819. doi:10.1111/peps.12002

Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., &Mojza, E. J. (2009). Daily performance at work: Feeling recovered inthe morning as a predictor of day-level job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,30, 67–93. doi:10.1002/job.541

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J. . . . Devins, G. (2004).Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11,230–241. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077

Bliese, P. D. (2006). Multilevel modeling in R (2.2): A brief introduction to R, the multilevelpackage and the nlme package. Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Modelbuilding, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 362–387.doi:10.1177/109442802237116

Bond, F. W., Flaxman, P. E., & Bunce, D. (2008). The influence of psychological flexibility on workredesign: Mediated moderation of a work reorganization intervention. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 93, 645–654. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.645

Broomfield, N. M. & Espie, C.A. (2003). Initial insomnia and paradoxical intention: An experimentalinvestigation of putative mechanisms using subjective and actigraphic measurement of sleep.Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31, 313–324. doi:10.1017/S1352465803003060

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role inpsychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations andevidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237. doi:10.1080/10478400701598298

Buysse, D. J., Reynolds, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). Pittsburgh SleepQuality Index (PSQI). Psychiatry Research, 28, 193–213. doi:10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4

Cameron, O. G. (2001). Interoception : The inside story – A model for psychosomatic processes.Psychosomatic Medicine, 710, 697–710. doi:10.1097/00006842-200109000-00001.

Cohen-Katz, J., Wiley, S., Capuano, T., Baker, D. M., Deitrick, L., & Shapiro, S. (2005). The effects ofmindfulness-based stress reduction on nurse stress and burnout: A qualitative and quantitativestudy, part III. Holistic Nursing Practice, 19, 26–35. doi:10.1097/00004650-200501000-00008

Cook, T. D., &Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field

settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Craig, A. (2003). Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Current

Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 500–505. doi:10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00090-4Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2014). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job

performance and turnover intention. Human Relations, 67, 105–128. doi:10.1177/0018726713487753


Demsky, C. A., Ellis, A. M., & Fritz, C. (2014). Shrugging it off: Does psychological detachmentfrom work mediate the relationship between workplace aggression and work-family conflict?Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 195–205. doi:10.1037/a0035448

Dreyfus, G. (2011). Is mindfulness present-centred and non-judgmental? A discussion of thecognitive dimensions of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12, 41–54. doi:10.1080/14639947.2011.564815

Eden, D., &Aviram, A. (1993). Self-Efficacy training to speed reemployment : Helping people to helpthemselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 352–360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.352

Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling Galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 770–780. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.770

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimentalinvestigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84, 377–389. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377Erisman, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the effects of experimentally

induced mindfulness on emotional responding to film clips. Emotion, 10, 72–82. doi:10.1037/a0017162

Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve service as arespite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 577–585. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.577

Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives:Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personalresources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062. doi:10.1037/a0013262

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at jobstressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management, 35, 94–111.doi:10.1177/0149206307308911

Fritz, C., Yankelevich, M., Zarubin, A., & Barger, P. (2010). Happy, healthy, and productive: The roleof detachment from work during nonwork time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 977–983.doi:10.1037/a0019462

F€ust€os, J., Gramann, K., Herbert, B. M., & Pollatos, O. (2013). On the embodiment of emotionregulation: Interoceptive awareness facilitates reappraisal. Social Cognitive and AffectiveNeuroscience, 8, 472–477. doi:10.1093/scan/nss089

Galantino, M. L., Baime, M., Maguire, M., Szapary, P. O., & Farrar, J. T. (2005). Association ofpsychological and physiologicalmeasures of stress in health-care professionals during an 8-weekmindfulness meditation program: Mindfulness in practice. Stress and Health, 21, 255–261.doi:10.1002/smi.1062

Geurts, S. A.,& Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatorymechanism in the relationbetweenacute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Work,Environment & Health, 32, 482–492. doi:10.5271/sjweh.1053

Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. In J. Martocchio,H. Liao & A. Joshi (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management(pp. 115–157). Bingley, UK: Emerald. doi:10.1108/S0742-7301(2011)0000030005

Hafenbrack, A. C., Kinias, Z., & Barsade, S. G. (2014). Debiasing the mind through meditation:Mindfulness and the sunk-cost bias. Psychological Science, 25, 369–376. doi:10.1177/0956797613503853

Hahn, V. C., Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2011). Learning how to recover from jobstress: Effects of a recovery training program on recovery, recovery-related self-efficacy, andwell-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 202–216. doi:10.1037/a0022169

Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A., & Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based therapyon anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 78, 169–183. doi:10.1037/a0018555

H€olzel, B. K., Ott, U., Gard, T., Hempel, H., Weygandt, M., Morgen, K., & Vaitl, D. (2008).Investigation of mindfulness meditation practitioners with voxel-based morphometry. SocialCognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 55–61. doi:10.1093/scan/nsm038


H€ulsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J.W. B. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness atwork: The role ofmindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction.Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 310–325. doi:10.1037/a0031313

H€ulsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Depenbrock, F., Fehrmann, C., Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Alberts, J. E. M.(2014). The power of presence: The role of mindfulness at work for daily levels and changetrajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99,1113–1128.

Irving, J. A., Dobkin, P. L., & Park, J. (2009). Cultivating mindfulness in health care professionals: Areview of empirical studies of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). Complementary

Therapies in Clinical Practice, 15, 61–66. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2009.01.002Jacobs, T. L., Epel, E. S., Lin, J., Blackburn, E. H., Wolkowitz, O. M., Bridwell, D. A., . . . Saron, C. D.

(2011). Intensive meditation training, immune cell telomerase activity, and psychologicalmediators. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 664–681. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.09.010

Jain, S., Shapiro, S. L., Swanick, S., Roesch, S. C., Mills, P. J., Bell, I., & Schwartz, G. E. R. (2007). Arandomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation versus relaxation training: Effects ondistress, positive states of mind, rumination, and distraction. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 1,11–21. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3301_2

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioralmedicine for chronic pain patients basedon the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results.General Hospital Psychiatry, 4, 33–47. doi:10.1016/0163-8343(82)90026-3

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your mind to face stress, painand illness. New York, NY: Dell.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context : Past-, present-, and future.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpg016

Kerr, C. E., Sacchet, M. D., Lazar, S. W., Moore, C. I., & Jones, S. R. (2013). Mindfulness starts with thebody: Somatosensory attention and top-downmodulationof cortical alpha rhythms inmindfulnessmeditation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–15. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00012

Khoo, S. T. (2001). Assessing program effects in the presence of treatment–baselineinteractions: A latent curve approach. Psychological Methods, 6, 234–257. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.3.234

Klatt, M. D., Buckworth, J., & Malarkey, W. B. (2009). Effects of low-dose mindfulness-based stressreduction (MBSR-ld) on working adults. Health Education & Behavior, 36, 601–614.doi:10.1177/1090198108317627

Krasner,M. S., Epstein, R.M., Beckman,H., Suchman, A. L., Chapman, B.,Mooney, C. J., &Quill, T. E.(2009). Association of an educational program in mindful communication with burnout,empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians. JAMA, 203, 1284–1293. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1384

Kristeller, J., Wolever, R. Q., & Sheets, V. (2013). Mindfulness-Based Eating Awareness Training(MB-EAT) for binge eating: A randomized clinical trial. Mindfulness, 5, 282–297. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0179-1

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based trainingintervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning &Education, 7, 209–221.

Lyubomirsky, S.,&Layous,K. (2013).Howdo simple positive activities increasewell-being? CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 22, 57–62. doi:10.1177/0963721412469809

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture ofsustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review ofPsychology, 58, 593–614. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542

Malarkey, W. B., Jarjoura, D., & Klatt, M. (2013). Workplace based mindfulness practice andinflammation: A randomized trial. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 27, 145–154. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2012.10.009


Manicavasagar, V., Perich, T., & Parker, G. (2012). Cognitive predictors of change in cognitivebehaviour therapy and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression. Behavioural andCognitive Psychotherapy, 40, 227–232. doi:10.1017/S1352465811000634

Marzuq, N., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2012). Recovery during a short period of respite: The interactiveroles of mindfulness and respite experiences. Work & Stress, 26, 175–194. doi:10.1080/02678373.2012.683574

Mathieu, J. E., Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Chen, G. (2012). Understanding and estimating thepower to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 97, 951–966. doi:10.1037/a0028380

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth &H. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Work psychology(pp. 5–33). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Meyers, M. C., vanWoerkom,M., & Bakker, A. B. (2013). The added value of the positive: A literaturereview of positive psychology interventions in organizations. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 22, 618–632. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.694689

Michalak, J., Heidenreich, T., Str€ohle, G., & Nachtigall, C. (2008). Die deutsche Version derMindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS): Psychometrische Befunde zu einemAchtsamkeitsfragebogen [German Version of the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale(MAAS): Psychometric properties of a mindfulness inventory]. Zeitschrift fuer KlinischePsychologie und Psychotherapie, 37, 200–208. doi:10.1026/1616-3443.37.3.200

Michel, A., Bosch, C., & Rexroth, M. (2014). Mindfulness as a cognitive – emotional segmentationstrategy: An intervention promoting work – life balance. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 87, 733–754. doi:10.1111/joop.12072Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research: An

introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79–93.doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000009

Ong, J. C., Card"e, N. B., Gross, J. J., & Manber, R. (2011). A two-dimensional approach to assessingaffective states in good and poor sleepers. Journal of Seep Research, 20, 606–610. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2869.2011.00907.x

Ong, J. C., Shapiro, S. L., & Manber, R. (2008). Combining mindfulness meditation with cognitive-behavior therapy for insomnia: A treatment-development study. Behavior Therapy, 39, 171–182. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2007.07.002

Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Do-it-yourself: An online positivepsychology intervention to promote positive emotions, self-efficacy, and engagement at work.Career Development International, 18, 173–196. doi:10.1108/CDI-10-2012-0102

Pereira, D., & Elfering, A. (2014). Social stressors atwork and sleep duringweekends: Themediatingrole of psychological detachment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(1), 85–95.doi:10.1037/a0034928

Pereira, D., Meier, L. L., & Elfering, A. (2013). Short-term effects of social exclusion at work andworries on sleep. Stress and Health, 29, 240–252. doi:10.1002/smi.2461

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions inmultiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal ofEducational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437

Querstret, D., & Cropley, M. (2012). Exploring the relationship between work-related rumination,sleep quality, and work-related fatigue. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 341–353. doi:10.1037/a0028552

Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Ho, Z. W. (2015). Mindfulness at work: Antecedents and consequences ofemployee awareness and absent-mindedness. Mindfulness, 6, 111–122. doi:10.1007/s12671-013-0236-4

Rosenzweig, S., Greeson, J. M., Reibel, D. K., Green, J. S., Jasser, S. A., & Beasley, D. (2010).Mindfulness-based stress reduction for chronic pain conditions: Variation in treatmentoutcomes and role of home meditation practice. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 68, 29–36. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.03.010


Roth, A., & Fonagy, P. (2005).What works for whom: A critical review of psychotherapy research(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., &Moreno-Jimenez, B. (2011). Daily detachment fromwork and home: The moderating effect of role salience. Human Relations, 64, 775–799.doi:10.1177/0018726710393368

Schmidt, A. F., Eulenbruch, T., Langer, C., & Banger, M. (2013). Interoceptive awareness, tensionreduction expectancies and self-reported drinking behavior. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 48, 472–477. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agt024

Sears, S. R., Kraus, S., Carlough, K., & Treat, E. (2011). Perceived benefits and doubts of participantsin a weekly meditation study. Mindfulness, 2, 167–174. doi:10.1007/s12671-011-0055-4

Segal, Z., Williams, M. R., & Teasdale, J. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy fordepression: A new approach to preventing relapse. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Shapiro, S. L., Brown, K. W., & Biegel, G. M. (2007). Teaching self-care to caregivers: Effects ofmindfulness-based stress reduction on the mental health of therapists in training. Training andEducation in Professional Psychology, 1, 105–115. doi:10.1037/1931-3918.1.2.105

Shapiro, S. L., Brown, K. W., Thoresen, C., & Plante, T. G. (2011). The moderation of mindfulness-based stress reduction effects by trait mindfulness: Results from a randomized controlled trial.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 267–277. doi:10.1002/jclp.20761

Shapiro, S. L., & Carlson, L. E. (2009). The art and science ofmindfulness: Integratingmindfulnessinto psychology and the helping professions. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 373–386. doi:10.1002/jclp.20237

Shirom, A., Nirel, N., & Vinokur, A. D. (2009). Work hours and caseload as predictors of physicianburnout: The mediating effects by perceived workload and by autonomy. Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 59, 539–565. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00411.xSiegel, R. D. (2010). The mindful solution: Everyday practices for everyday problems. New York,

NY: Guilford Press.Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced

multilevel modeling. London, UK: Sage.Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: A diary study. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 196–210. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.3.196Sonnentag, S., Arbeus, H., Mahn, C., & Fritz, C. (2014). Exhaustion and lack of psychological

detachment from work during off-job time: Moderator effects of time pressure and leisureexperiences. Journal ofOccupationalHealth Psychology,19, 206–216. doi:10.1037/a0035760

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., &Mojza, E. J. (2008). Did you have a nice evening? A day-level study onrecovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychlogy, 93, 674–684.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.674

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands arehigh: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 965–976.doi:10.1037/a0020032

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development andvalidation of a measure. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 204–221.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as anintegrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, S72–S103. doi:10.1002/job.1924

Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Reciprocal relations betweenrecovery and work engagement: The moderating role of job stressors. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 97, 842–853. doi:10.1037/a0028292

Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2006). Job characteristics and off-job activities as predictors ofneed for recovery, well-being, and fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 330–350.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.330


Van ‘t Wout, M., Faught, S., & Menino, D. (2013). Does interoceptive awareness affect the ability toregulate unfair treatment by others? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 472–477. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00880

Van Berkel, J., Boot, C. R. L., Proper, K. I., Bongers, P. M., & van der Beek, A. J. (2013). Processevaluation of a workplace health promotion intervention aimed at improvingwork engagementand energy balance. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55, 19–26.doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e318269e5a6

Williams, J. M. G. (2010). Mindfulness and psychological process. Emotion, 10, 1–7. doi:10.1037/a0018360

Williams, M., Teasdale, J., Segal, Z., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (2007). The mindful way through depression:Freeing yourself from chronic unhappiness. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Wolever, R. Q., Bobinet, K. J., McCabe, K., Mackenzie, E. R., Fekete, E., Kusnick, C. A., & Baime, M.(2012). Effective and viable mind-body stress reduction in the workplace: A randomizedcontrolled trial. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 246–258. doi:10.1037/a0027278

Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Arch, J. J., Rosenfield, D., & Craske, M. G. (2012). Moderators and non-specific predictors of treatment outcome for anxiety disorders: A comparison of cognitivebehavioral therapy to acceptance and commitment therapy. Journal of Consulting andClinicalPsychology, 80, 786–799. doi:10.1037/a0029418

Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects ofability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231–247.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.231

Received 1 June 2014; revised version received 23 February 2015


Copyright of Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

Special issue paper A low-dose mindfulness intervention and recovery...

Documents

Transcript of Special issue paper A low-dose mindfulness intervention and recovery...